by Jack Lee
The increasingly high costs of running for election has never been more apparent than in the State of California. One of the biggest contributors to CA democrats is the cash strapped UC system. Despite their cries of being forced to raise tuition costs to make ends meet, they somehow found $3.4M to donate to democrat politicians and $800,000 for lobby money in Sacramento in 2012. The lobbying costs runs them (actually us CA taxpayers) about $780,000 a year. We’re forced to use our own tax money against ourselves to re-elect tax and spend democrats! The UC system doesn’t need a lobby, they’re supposed to be party neutral.
California ranks highest in the nation for spending on political races. In 2012 we spent $98,419,716! 64% of that total went to democrats. Of that total, $20,600,977 was soft money (laundered) contributions.
The rising costs of running for elections has filtered out the average guy in favor of those who are either very wealthy or are very well connected. These costly campaigns reflect a national trend. It takes boat loads of money to win a federal election these days – most notable of these elections is the presidency – and concerned voters from both parties say elections costs are spiraling out of control.
Consider that the 1996 Clinton – Dole campaigns spent about $232 million – supplemented by about $69 million in ads by the Republican and Democratic national committees. In total this election year cost about $2.7 billion. However by 2008 the election costs had risen to over $5.4 billion. Over $6 billion was spent in the 2012 election.
Why are the campaign costs skyrocketing?
(1) Increases in cost due to technology and (2) Increased competition between the parties.
It must be worth it too – 94% of the winners in elections outspent their opponents – underscoring the need for future candidates to raise lots of money!
Candidates’ are making more use of the mass media than every before and as a result their campaign is in a continuous fund raising mode even during their term in office. Television advertising is certainly a big recipient of State-wide campaigns, but TV ads are being seen in many races for state legislative and local elections. Newspaper advertising and radio ads tend to receive the 
most campaign money for such races.
Elections have become more expensive because their require more professional advisers to run the campaign. These pro’s don’t come cheap, but are effective. They do a lot research and polling because modern campaigns demand it, they’ve become very sophisticated when it comes to luring the vote. This has spawned a whole new industry to get your vote by overt and covert means. Websites and other Internet-based methods have increased already rising costs and they’re also very effective! The Internet has been used to mobilize party members, foot soldiers, and attract new donors. Researchers on campaigns are now looking into your attitudes, habits, and determining what is likely to get your vote.
Because so much money is involved and fund raising goes on perpetually, even while lawmakers are drafting legislation the corruption has ramped up to new levels. The term, “follow the money” has been used to detect bribes connected to legislation, especially in California where bribery is an open secret in the capitol. Everyone must play the game and take the money or their chances of being re-elected are slim. Money has compromised ethics and stolen elections, yet the Supreme Court holds that money equals free speech. How ironic, when you consider those with the most money have so much more free speech, that they virtually drown out the competition.
There is no end in sight to rising campaign costs and the higher they go the fewer choices the voters will have, because so few of us can afford to run. The field of candidates is shrinking every year. Big money has made participation in elections limited to a small ruling class; commoners need not apply.
Now I ask you… does this trend enhance the democratic process or does it undermine it?
Jack, jar my memory. What was the lie Obama told during his first campaign in 2008 when he said he would or wouldn’t take certain funds and then did the opposite?
Our tax dollars going to support political candidates should be illegal. If it’s not there’s a chance in hell it ever will be.
At least public union employees are speaking out about having a portion of their union dues going to political parties they don’t endorse.
Peggy, as I recall Obama said he would not take special interest money. Seems like he was going to reform how big money influences federal elections. Actually, it’s gotten worse under his watch. What we have now is nothing short of extortion. Members of Congress put the arm on corporations to pay up their share at fund raisers or suffer the consequences. The UC system is a State organization obviously and as such it’s income is derived mostly from tax money. They should not be able to use our tax dollars for anything except education, but instead they are spending a lot of money to buy influence in Sacramento and often times that goes against the best interests of the taxpayers. Look at how their pension fund has evolved, this is a huge unfunded obligation foisted on the taxpayers. No honest politician would have allowed it, but money talks and they bought their big pensions and health policies using our own money! Yes, it is a crime, but only in the moral sense. There’s no law to prevent such unethical tactics and democrats are only too happy to oblige them and take the bribe money. Its become a very unreasonable situation and sadly it appears also to be an unstoppable situation.
Boy Jack, I think you nailed it between the lack of morality and the deep ideological divide, The sense of necessity and intensity to have the side you favor win is driving contributions ever higher. I don’t think we would be seeing this level of expenditure were it not for the deeply divided electorate. It’s not a contest anymore; its (non-violent) war.
Among those I wouldn’t blame for risking big cash in 2016 are the guys in coal. The direct assault to put this industry out of business is criminal. The left has become intensely radical on environmental regulations. It’s one thing to set a standard. It’s quite another to not allow enough time to absorb the cost…or even to invent the technology to get it done.
Another is the banking industry. The amount of cash that Dodd/Frank makes them keep on hand now is ridiculous, the paperwork and expense horrendous, and almost six years of near 0% interest rates hasn’t done much for savings, CD investment, or lending…especially in this crap economy.
Real Estate…good grief!
Healthcare!!!!!
Manufacturing…retailers, restaurants…it’s not good. Why has it not occurred to our fellow Americans that without a strong vibrant economy and good jobs the socialist utopia and miracle cures for the environment won’t have funding? Why do they not see that without support of private sector wealth building there is no money even for government jobs…teachers…schools. We need big bold ideas and they hand us minimum wage and wind farms.. It would be funny were it not so incredibly stupid and sad for the young folks that don’t really understand
I’ve been watching a business channel in the morning just to keep an eye on things generally. One person from Silicon Valley was talking about companies sitting on patented ideas holding back for better times.
We’re going through this during a period of upheaval as we transition and adjust to the changes and realities that the new technologies have brought. This adds to the uncertainties for many businesses.
I guess the best we can do for the kids is hang on to what we have as best we can. If the country decides to go with our opponents even that might become pretty difficult.
Yes, I do understand the fervor behind big donations in times like these. The biggest problem is corrupt politician and corruption within a party. They are given a special level of authority and they have a responsibility to give back a high level of trust. It’s up to them to set the higher standard. when it comes to quid pro quo games. I don’t know how to improve on that since morality is so out of fashion and corrupt methods seen as clever. Even if there were stronger limits on contributions corruption would take the form of control of the available funds. Sad day in America…doesn’t help that people are so easily duped.
It’s just time we get rid of these liberal fools and get our dictatorship in…
Taxes are paid for a business to get them as a subsidy and profit
we shall obey
“The UC system doesn’t need a lobby, they’re supposed to be party neutral.”
Oh, grow up.
It would be institutionally suicidal to support a party hell bent on destroying public education in this country … the Trustees aren’t gonna do it, and it’s quite childish of you to expect it.
Sarah conservatives have suggested simplification of the tax code which includes the elimination of loop holes. We have also favored ending subsidies and reforming unsustainable programs so the public is served and we stop creating debt for future generations to pay.
Progressives want only to enlarge the size of government and it’s power over our lives. In nearly six years they have destroyed the middle class and crushed opportunity for millions of Americans and increased our debt more than under any other president.
If you want to complain about tax dollars being mismanaged and misspent you might want to look at the source for most of it. Until 1994 Democrats had control of both houses of Congress for most of the previous fifty years…its a long long legacy.
One oil companies profit on a gallon of gasoline in 2010 was two cents ($.02)…the average state tax on the same gallon of gas was forty-eight cents ($.48). The government needs big oil more than big oil needs government. The American economy and every single household in America benefits from where the oil is oil production. The subsidy they are given supports the unprofitable work it takes to find the oil. It was deemed important because every American depends on oil for energy in one way or another. But oil companies would gladly give up the subsidy for some relief in taxes and piles of unnecessary and costly regulation that hinders production.
Libby: “It would be institutionally suicidal to support a party hell bent on destroying public education”
When I look at the quality of education and the content of classes offered I don’t think much would be missed. A little wake up call and competition might startle them into actually doing some work.
Re #7 Tina: As usual the progressive crowd takes an extreme and silly — if not plain stupid — position. No one is trying to destroy public education. A little competition would go far to improve it!
Progressives = Morons
Pie the one thing you can count on a progressive to do is grossly exaggerate or down right lie about their opponents and their intentions.
We don’t want to destroy education…we want the best education in the world. We want to dump the stuff that isn’t working. It’s pretty hard to call the current system education…more like propaganda camps that exist for political power and benefits paid by the taxpayer. The quality of education has deteriorated and the cost has skyrocketed with very little making it to the classroom…nuts to that…yeah!
“When I look at the quality of education ….”
Tina, we have already thrashed this out. Private educators are only interested in the educable, them has will enhance their stats.
Public educators are out to raise the entire boat. And if that is NOT what you want, Somalia is the place for you.
Libby: ” Private educators are only interested in the educable, them has will enhance their stats.”
Horsefeathers!
The Report Card highlights “Success Academy Harlem:
On education how about we allow people to individually choose.
Freedom again is the problem.
Charter Schools for profit are in Question when our tax dollars are diverted for another person to profit. If the corporation is traded on wall street than by law the profit becomes more important than education.
Why should we allow these profit schools pick the brightest kids, hire teachers that went through 6 weeks training, and profit off our tax dollars. It also removes any right of the citizens to monitor what is taught.
Why can’t the profit school, build their own buildings, charge what they want, and teach what they want without taking my tax dollar?
If we want a non profit charter for some no problem.
Why is my tax dollar to go to someone else making a profit on it? Why would the return not go back to the tax payers?
I do not want to pay taxes for someone else’s profit what in the world is wrong with that?
Cindy, what most people think of as private schools are technically called “chartered, non-public schools.”
“Ohio has approximately 800 of schools that fall into this category. These schools, most of which are either affiliated with Christian churches or have Christian orientations, serve more than 195,000 students.
Like public schools, Ohio private schools are governed by school boards and must meet basic state operating standards. These operating standards include rules about the minimum school-day length and the subjects that must be covered (language arts, geography and history, math, science, health and physical education, personal safety, fine arts and first aid). They also include rules about how a school should be structured: For example, courses of study rather than completely free-form explorations must be the key components of a school’s instruction.
Private schools must administer annual standardized tests such as the Ohio Achievement Tests. Their students must pass the Ohio Graduation Tests and, starting with students entering ninth grade in 2010, complete the same course requirements as public school students in order to graduate.
While private schools do not receive the same funding as public schools, they do receive some tax dollars in the form of reimbursement for some administrative costs and certain services provided to students. Some private schools also receive tax dollars in the form of vouchers.”
Cindy this is a community decision…it’s not a mandate of big government. It came by way of a vote by the people – taxpayers, like yourself.
Charter School laws differ from state to state. Some of the for profit schools invest the profits back into the school. It provides the means to gradually improve the facility and enables purchase of needed supplies and means of expansion to serve more children.
Jonahon Turly, legal scholar with a left prospective, addressed the issue of profits and Charter Schools in New York, see here.
It’s interesting how NY democrats can pass a law giving tax breaks and incentives to investors to facilitate the building of charter schools in NY and then later on complain that those investors are making too much profit on the investment. They certainly had control over the details of the deal…the percentages involved in interest on the loans and tax breaks. They either want the infusion of money or they don’t.
The subject of profits in Charter Schools was investigted in hearings at the federal level:
I think it would only be troubling if the schools were failing the children or charging excessive fees to parents. Whatever monies are privided by tax dollars would be provided to these students if they were in traditional public schools, It’s not like the schools are profiting from the tax dollars…i that were so public schools would be profiting since they have more kids.
It could be said that the ducational system has been profitting greatly from taxpayers and delivering an inferior product for a number of decades. I don’t know how else you describe the salaries and benefits paid in education, especially to the highly compensated in the system, if not as profits. The teachers unions aren’t doing anything to educate our children and they are profitting tremendously from this association…all of it flowing from our tax dollars.
Here is a blog post about Charter Schools in California. One commenter makes a good point that often surplus is called “profit” when talking about Charter Schools whereas the same in a regular public school is just a surplus.
More about Butte County Charter Schools here.
There is a definite prejudice against Charters, but the concept was born out of the failures in the public system. Traditional public schools should learn from the best of these laboratories of learning.
The public schools are ripping off kids…especially in poor neighborhoods. If getting private investors involved works, and we should certainly watch to see when it does and when it doesn’t, then I see no reason that private funds should not be utilized. We just have to be sure the laws that are enacted don’t favor politicians and investors over the children.
Business people and investors have a very good reason for wanting American schools to do better. Our schools are where the future of America is made. It’s been obvious for some time that much too often our students are no longer prepared to become productive adults ready to work after graduation…that’s got to change.
This was done a couple of years ago, is over an hour long and certain individuals he talks about have since spoken out against the republicans in Congress. I find his information enlightening and his argument highly feasible.
G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdu0N1-tvU
Here’s what I found on the Mt. Shasta aluminum levels he discussed. I have no idea if it’s true or not. I’d not heard of it before and provide it as informational only.
http://www.mountshastaecology.org/Archive/37%20Spring_Summer2008/09%20Guest_Article2_spring_summer_2008.html
http://sonomanewstoday.blogspot.com/2009/03/chemtrails-polluting-shasta-water.html
Post;
As I said to each their own. My problem is the usage of tax dollars for profit the tax payers never see profit in return.
If a school is making a profit then why do taxpayers have to subsidize them.
If one starts an education business why do I have to pay for it?
They can use their profits to pay for their administration costs.
A non profit charter is different than a for profit charter. Also I want a say in what my child is taught.
I spend countless hours teaching the children in my extended family. I will say the ones going to the charter have unqualified teachers down to my nieces guitar class. Bless her heart but she has no formal education and teaches them the very basics wrong.
I also have to correct math skills. They do not teach them the basics properly, just a long way to the answer.
I think my brother is going to pull them now because they are ahead of their class and need a more challenging class. There is nothing wrong with public education and non profit charter and regular schools.
We need to modernize the system that’s all. We want our kids to take their skills to the maximum and finish High school by age 16. They will be going to college early as they are on track to have 2 years of community college by 18 or 19.
High School seems to be a waste and the kids get bored. Why not change the system where when they reach a certain proficiency they are trained in a trade or job or enter college prep. Those who are slower can continue regular high school level work until they pass.
I just do not see this trend of our tax money going to others who then profit.
If we start a business than should tax payers subsidize us? I rather fix the potholes on I5.
Cindy I suppose if these schools were making huge profits and the directors were pocketing that money you’d have a valid point. I don’t think that is what’s happening. Charter Schools come under the public school umbrella and as such the taxpayer funds they receive are for butts in the seats just like kids in the public schools receive. I don’t think they get extra dollars for sports programs, buildings and the like. The profits they make from fundraising events go right back into the school. This model would cost the taxpayer less in the long run. It is at the very least not costing them more.
If you want a say in what your child is taught then you should know that with Charter schools you have greater choice. Public schools give parents a single choice (other than private schools) and the curriculum is influenced and decided by a select body.
“I will say the ones going to the charter have unqualified teachers down to my nieces guitar class.”
My granddaughter attended a Charter School in Chico; the music/arts departments were fabulous! The schools expectations for achievement in science, math and literature were set very high. I couldn’t be more pleased with the outcome.
Not all schools are the same, however, whether public, charter, or private, nor are all teachers. Every parent and guardian must make the best choice for his child.
“They will be going to college early as they are on track to have 2 years of community college by 18 or 19.”
Excellent plan for many students. congratulations to you and your kids.
“Why not change the system where when they reach a certain proficiency they are trained in a trade or job or enter college prep. Those who are slower can continue regular high school level work until they pass.”
another excellent idea; I support it wholeheartedly!
Once again the tax dollars that charter schools receive for the kids is the same as they would receive were the kids attending public school. Charter school principles and teachers usually receive less pay not more than their counterparts in the public school system. Profits are from fundraising which they do to enhance the program…the money is invested back into the school for computer equipment, lab supplies, music, etc. In some cases profits go toward expanding the number of schools that are available but that happens in much larger areas than Chico. In New York apparently some of the Charter School’s are supported by large corporations and fund managers. If they are getting better results maybe what we should do is consider changing over to for profit private schools and get government, and the taxpayer, out of education all together. Privately funded schools would have to prove themselves…public schools/teachers are allowed to continue even when they fail, especially in poor neighborhoods.
Taxpayers should not subsidize business generally. As long as we are paying for education with tax dollars I see no reason to discriminate against kids in charter (or private schools). My gripe is that too much of our tax dollars used for needless bureaucracy and personal perks (high salaries, healthcare, and pensions) for elites in the school system and not in the classroom to educate the kids.
Otherwise, like you, I would rather see tax dollars go for infrastructure improvement.